Topic: World War III and BTC - page 8. (Read 7506 times)

So they should only be attacking Iran and Syria then... All in the name of peace and a final solution offc.

100 years after, burned communication save with only miracles help part of internal network, mining is a pleasure of richest peoples, latest block is found in one of the closed underground cities, and nobody still, no know who really was this Satoshi.....

What I mean is that countries like America might not survive long enough to fight seriously if they get cut off from certain key trading partners. Especially food and oil.

If the super powers of today _were_ able to survive with out importing, we would probably be safer.  Japan attacked the US and UK because they could not survive with out US and UK oil.  Truly independent super powers would not be forced to compete for resources on the world market.  The argument that our world powers are too interconnected to go to war ignores the competition inherent in that interconnection and the risk of conflict rising from that competition.

Three of the five cases listed by OP are obviously resource competition (China - Japan, China - Taiwan, N. Korea - S. Korea).  I submit the fourth case, Israel - Syria, can be traced to water and land competition.  The last case, Israel - Iran is a more interesting problem since it is not obviously about resources but more along the lines of power projection and status.  Those can be tied back to resource access.


In any case, trade and resource competition seem to be more likely to lead to war than prevent war.

No, I'm not saying Israel is to attack "all neighboring countries", only those proving to have the agenda and will and capabilities to destroy Israel and also as a last resort.

Think about it, if you live in the USA and North Korean threatens to destroy the USA, the USA will "ask" the same questions:
1. Are the serious about this threat - do they have an Agenda of actually doing such a thing?
2. Do they have the capabilities to do such a thing, or are they aiming to get such capabilities?
3. Will they act once they have such capabilities?

So, in the USA case its much harder to destroy because of the size of the united states and also because of the distance, and also it's harder to "imagine" one will actually "Act" (3) because of the USA military power is so overwhelming and can avenge even after a strike hits it. But what if there was a bomb that can destroy ALL of the USA in 1 strike? would the USA allow North Korean to hold such a bomb? Would they allow North Korean to try and get to it underground - all the while threatening to annihilate the USA? Fortunately for the USA there is no such a single-bomb yet, but a country the size of Israel can be destroyed by a single bomb these days..
So in Israel's case, passive defensive measures are of course also taken into consideration, such as:
1. Once a country/Terror organization has the means to act, can anti-missile defense work efficiently enough to defend the Israel?
2. Do Israel have enough Air-dominance to remove threats before happening, i.e while launching missiles?
3. Can Israel take such hits without being critically damaged, wounded or even completely destroyed or crippled and thus vulnerable to other threats? (etc) and what is the rate of death from potential attacks?

But once you start answering these questions, you might find yourself in a position where all  of Israel's (or any country) measures start to fail and the potential damage is too high, then the defensive measures must become active measurements, such as politically trying to stop movement of troops or arms, moving army to locations where it shows you will act if the other side prepares to launch attacks, and even strike against critical points of "balance changing abilities".

Those "balance changing" "things", such as mass-destruction weapons that are being sent to Terrorists are called "balance changing" because up until the Terrorists or the ones want to kill others get to such capabilities, there's a balance between the passive defensive measures and the threats.
This balance is often called "cold war" or "peaceful time" where in fact it is not peaceful at all, but an arm-race.
Once the line of "balance changing capabilities" is crossed,  the balance is broken and passive-defenses become less and less effective sometimes over time and sometimes at-once. Then we get to the active measurements where at the top of the line we see military action to prevent the other side of harming your country.
(Such as defensive strikes to remove the balance-changing capabilities from the world).
Such calculations are different from country to country, according to location, demographics, capabilities, allies, resources, current threats, future potential threats and many more factors.

So, as you can see, we are not talking about a Strike against Syria, but against Hizballah trying to get Syrian weapons of mass-destructions. Same goes for Iran. these are "balance changing weapons" or "capabilities."

To summarize:
No, I am not saying Israel needs to attack all neighboring countries before they do". I'm saying Israel, just like any other country, needs to evaluate the threats the country is facing and measure them according to capabilities of passive defense, allies, politics and active defensive measurements.
Once done the calculation, just like any country, Israel needs to defend itself against threats that can actually harm it. Again, I'm not talking about just threats, but a real agenda+will+capabilities.

(No is speaking about Israel attacking Turkey, or Jordan, or Egypt for example.... which are all neighboring countries).

Ao what you are saying is that Israel needs to attack all neighbouring countries before they do?

I honestly wonder exactly how many countries will jump in to aid America. I get the feeling that most are tired of their bullshit. Its not like they are going to turn on America but exactly how willing are they to help?

Israel is a very small country, it is smaller than most states in the USA and is surrounded by tons of enemy countries, just open the middle east map to see the sizes. Now, with that in mind, you need to look at the history of Israel and the Jewish people. Every generation there is some nation, at least one, that wants to annihilate all Jews from the face of the earth, this is why a country that is only 65 years old and had so many wars already. Wars with Egypt, wars with Syria, wars where Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon joined together to destroy Israel and many many more. Just look at the history. Now, as you understand Israel takes threats seriously, as history proved that those threatening to kill Jews, once they are capable or think they are capable of doing so, they act on it.
Just like in WWII the Nazi's decided to kill every Jew on planet earth and did what they did to kill over 6,000,000... So, what I'm getting at here is simple: today Iran keeps on saying (publicly) that they want to destroy Israel completely and remove it from the world's map. While saying that they keep on advancing their nuclear capabilities and once they have that... there will be a time + place in history, once again, where a nation that has intentions on killing Jews will have the capabilities, or think they have the capabilities to do so will emerge.
This means Israel wants to prevent that situation from ever happening, and therefore if Iran keeps going nuclear as they do right now... there will be no choice for Israel but to attack Iran in a defensive attack. Just like when a person tells you he wants to kill you and your entire family, he hates you deeply and then he starts to load a gun... You might tell yourself that as long as he doesn't have a means of killing you, let him talk, but once he has the gun, once he has the bullets and once he starts putting the bullets inside the gun you might want to stop him before he does what he does to you and your family.

So all you need to do in order to know the chances of this scenario happening is to check how far Iran advanced and is advancing with their "Gun-Loading" or in our case - making of nuclear bomb(s).


You need to watch the news more carefully. Israel doesn't aim to attack Syria itself, but Hizballah is getting armed by Syria, and as you might know, Hizballah wants to destroy Israel, and already poses amazing arsenal of weapons and arms... Israel must make sure Hizballah doesn't get strategic weapons capable of destroying cities and important factories and areas in Israel country... Again, the size of Israel is very important here, because there's almost no strategic-depth. If a rocket is fired from Lebanon (Hizballah) to Israel, there is no sea, or almost any land for it to fly above... which means the time it takes for the rocket to hit is very short and also it means that less-advanced rockets (rockets that are capable of flying shorter distances, carry less explosives etc) can hurt Israel easily.

Therefore, when Hizballah keeps on threatening  to destroy Tel-Aviv, there is the same story here... while they just "talk", let them talk... but once you see they are arming with weapons capable of doing what they want to do... Israel must defend itself and prevent such arms of ever getting to Hizballah.
Therefore, Israel already attack deliveries from Syria to Hizballah and after these attacks Syria... instead of saying they wouldn't give Hizballah weapons and arms... said they will give them their most advanced weapons and they will do it asap! Furthermore, Iran and Russia are backing-up Syria by giving them weapons, troops and diplomatic support but if that's not enough, recently Russia gave Syria s-300 rockets, which are super-advanced anti-aircraft weapons. Furthermore, the officers activating these rockets are Russians and it's already setup in Syria.

This is like saying to Israel to "stop defend itself against weapons and arms delivery to Hizballah by Syria"... but just as you thought it couldn't get any worse, Russia clearly stated that Israel must "stop attacking Syria" which we all know is not "attack" but a pre-attack-defensive measures.

So, just imagine the next missile cargo going from Syria to Hizballah, and I'm talking about chemical weapons and advanced rockets here... Israel will look at the cargo and... what? do nothing?! would you?!? at that point, the cargo delivery will have to be stopped, and then Russia should activate their s-300 missiles, and then we have the beginning of a WWIII.

I have so much more to tell you guys...as I said I can write a book about all this. but I think, it's enough for now. Just look at the nations involved here and go research on your own a little bit. You can come back here and ask questions - I would answer them, mostly.

One more answer to a question asked here before I wrap this reply up:


Generally speaking there will be 2 sides for the conflict, from the one hand we have USA + Many countries in Europe, like France, England, Italy, Ireland etc and also South Korean and Japan and from the other hand we have Russia+China + North Korea + Iran + Syria etc.

If we take a look at a complete list I think we get to about 70 countries involved in this thing... just look at the current Sea-Military-exercise taking place near Iran by USA and 40 more countries together exercising sea-mining removals and attacks from sea.
(Yes, it is taking place as we speak).

A new game coming out? 

I wanted to post this.

I think the current world power balance are pretty stable, too stable for something like WWIII, things going on in south china sea would be nothing bigger than a conflict at the worst. and most likely it would never happen. And China would never risk everything to support NK b/c that's against it's best interest

Please write the book.

Who do you think will fight if there's ww3? China/ US?

There is a big possibility that world war III even in few months time. I thinks bitcoin's/gold/silver/platinum  price will skyrocket if people sees this as their last resort to store and retains the value of their money.

Possible, but not likely.
The costs are to high compared to the possible effect of such actions.

Meh

China has more to gain from stability in the region, even though they may show some strength and be disruptive.

Meh.

NK might do something stupid. (Which is not helped by US's confronting line -NK is like an attention seeking child and US plays along instead of being the sensible one at the sideline.)
But I doubt China will step in except as negotiators.
I think China sees NK as a loose cannon and not like something worth defending too much.


Meh.
Doubt Israel will do any first attack, they have enough problems as it is, and Iran knows that US will step in if they attack.
If there were to become a conflict, russia might support with equipment, but they will get a deal to get their oil anyways.
Don't think US would risk being tangled up in another war if they can avoid it.


Meh.
Israel has nothing to win by this, and Syria does not have a proper rule ATM.
Would not be too surprised if there were some border-attacks by Syrian warlords though. But not something that is likely to escalate.


Remember that China own a huge amount of US debt. If they wanted to hurt the US, they would simply sell their debt and collapse the dollar. They could also stop export to US. This would hurt both nations. But China could still export to europe knowing that a lot of the export would be resold to the US, but then at a higher price which would hurt US more.

Informative post! Keep em coming 

Try draw as many similarities as you like but... Can any major power even survive without importing nowdays? They are consuming everything from food to metal and only perhaps Russia has the diversity of resources to piss off the world. Even then they dont have the infrastructure to utilize it.

Todays super powers simply cant afford to cut trade relations. Especially since their enemies are their greatest trading partners.

The way things stand since the crash of 2008 - any little thing can set things off -
just look at Greece, Spain, Portugal.  How long to do you think that the young
and unemployed will hold still?

This was a common viewpoint before the Great War (later renamed WW1) and before WW2.

In the run up before each of those conflicts,  the thinkers claimed the Great Powers were to interconnected to have a big war.  The leaders prior to WW1 were all related by blood or marriage.   It was unthinkable that they would have more than a little proxy war somewhere.  Prior to WW2, world trade was a significant cohesive force and WW1 had shown how costly war is.

We will always have another war.  It will always be longer, deadlier, and more expensive than planned.  I expect we are transitioning to a period when wars will be more about belief systems than  economic access.  Conversion at the point of the sword with morality enforced by the government.   This also means wars will be fought against enemies that are dehumanised.   War time atrocities will become more common as the enemy is less human.  This leads to the use of WMDs against civilian targets.

Sorry,  very depressing but this the trend I see.  Bitcoin will be valuable as long as there is a communication medium to support it and traders moving goods between money systems.

I'm not sure the global climate exists nowadays for a full blown world war.
The world is significantly different from the days of world war 1 and 2.
The major superpowers need each other too much to annihilate each other.

The modern age of warfare is all to do with small localized conflicts and proxy wars.